BBBC 2016 #4 – 4. Misused and/or mispronounced word or words that make you CRAZY

I don’t know if the internet has enough storage space for me on this one. There is a word that is used by people who like to puff themselves up and sound important. I’ve done some research on it. It actually *is* a word, but even the good folks at call it “a clunky one”.

That word… and this is the ONLY time I’ll ever type it (unless I’m complaining about it) is…


Oh.  My.  God.  It gives me eyeball twitches just thinking about it.  I maintain it’s not a word.  According to ( it is though.  I suppose they put more energy into  it than me, so I guess I have to trust them.

But just like people that put ketchup on bratwurst, that doesn’t make it right.

I think people that spout out irregardless are trying to make themselves sound educated and important.  And as we all know:


I think what those people really mean is simply “regardless”.  Why do they think that adding “ir” to it makes it more important?  Do they mean “irrespective”?  Probably not.  Who knows.

According to

Its nonstandard status is due to the double negative construction of the prefix ir- with the suffix -less. The prefix ir- means “not,” while the suffix -less means “without,” literally translating to “not without regard.” This, of course, is the opposite of what English speakers generally intend to convey when using this term; for this reason, style guides unanimously urge against using irregardless.

So the people that are using it are actually using it wrong.  HA!  I claim it’s not even a word but then it’s a fake word they aren’t even using right?



2 thoughts on “BBBC 2016 #4 – 4. Misused and/or mispronounced word or words that make you CRAZY

  1. Imagine my delight to discover that we share our opinions of “irregardless.” That’s one of those words I am firmly convinced people use to make themselves sound smarter, in their opinion. In my mind, it makes them sound dumb. Period. 🙂

  2. Well Mark, there is a special place in hell for people who knowingly indulge in double negatives. By the time I try to parse three double negatives my brain starts to overheat and I develop facial twitches. When I get to four, I walk away.

    Lawyerdom has produced far too many instances.

    “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph four, each time that the circumstances set out in section three do not apply, the victim of this clause is deemed not to have transgressed, unless the breach would, but for the provisions of paragraph four, also be a breach of section 3, in which case this section does not apply.”

    And yes folks I can actually point out a clause pretty much that bad in a very, very prominent standard contract, relating, not surprisingly, to derivative securities. And people wonder who the securitized mortgage crisis ever happened. Double negatives my friends. When you see one, flee!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll To Top